Breasts are NOT part of sexual physiology, any more than Chinese bound feet
are, or thighs in Mali, or any other culturally-defined body part. Culture
is extremely powerful. Cultural beliefs and practices can sexualize just
about any part of the body -- people can learn to take sexual pleasure from
having their toes sucked. This doesn't make toes a natural part of sexual
physiology.
It is not accurate to say that cultures where breasts are not sex objects
are also cultures where females are circumcized. The vast majority of
cultures in the world, as of the 1940s/1950s, did not view the breasts as
sexually stimulating and did not involve the breasts in sexual behavior. In
Ford and Beach's survey (1951), 13 out of 190 cultures viewed the breasts as
sexually stimulating, and 13 out of 190 involved the breasts in sexual
behavior, and there were only 3 cultures that did both (the two groups of 13
mostly did not overlap). Most cultures in the world do not circumcize their
females.
Female circumcision is about insuring who the father of the baby is, so that
the father's resources are not put into raising children other than his own.
There are many other cultural solutions to the problem of men not being
sure who their offspring are -- such as double-standards for men and women,
cults of the virgin wife, seclusion within the home, and matrilineality.
Circumcision is only one of many cultural ways to insure male paternity, and
it is not related to how the culture views the breasts.
It is not legitimate to argue that in the vast majority of human cultures
people have managed to repress the breasts' sexual function. If you look at
the animal world, in no other species do the mammary glands play any role
whatsoever in sexual attraction or sexual behavior. The bull does not get
thrills from the cow's udder. The male dog pays no attention to the bitch's
mammary glands.
"Breasts as sex objects" is unknown in the non-human mammal world. "Breasts
as sex objects" was unknown in the vast majority of human cultures as
recently as the middle of the 20th century. The only logical conclusion is
that breasts have no biological/physiological/natural sexual function.
That breasts culturally can be made to be sexually stimulating is obvious --
see a few cultures in the last few centuries. But so can deformed bound
feet (China), so can thighs, so can the nape of the neck, so can long hair,
etc. etc. etc. etc. Careful cross-cultural research has shown that the only
cross-cultural universal in sexual attractiveness is a big difference in the
size of the waist versus the hips (a big difference, with the waist being
smaller, is sexy to men everywhere).
That breasts culturally can be made into a source of sexual pleasure for
both men and women is obvious -- see a few cultures in the last few
centuries. But so can just about any other body part. There is nothing
specific to the breasts that leads to sexual arousal -- they do not have
high concentrations of nerves. This is all LEARNED and CULTURAL.
While I think the work that Fiona is doing is interesting and provocative,
there can never be any excuse for deliberately misrepresenting the data, nor
for making up elaborate and unrealistic scenarios (cultures repressing
female sexual enjoyment from their breasts) just to make a point.
Let me attempt to make an illustrative analogy: Imagine a devout Hindu
researcher who doesn't believe people should eat meat. She wants to
convince people to not eat meat by arguing that humans are naturally
vegetarian. Even though primates in general are omnivores (eating both
plants and meat) and even though the vast majority of human cultures are
omnivores and eat meat, she -- the Hindu researcher -- insists that humans
are not designed to eat meat, and that in those cultures where people do eat
meat, it is because cultural beliefs have over-ridden the natural urge to be
vegetarian. Silly, isn't it?
This makes as much sense as arguing that even though no other mammals use
the mammary glands in sexual behavior, and even though most human cultures
don't either, that it is somehow natural for humans to get sexual pleasure
from their breasts, and that in those cultures that don't, they have
repressed it culturally.
It makes no sense. There is not one shred of evidence for it. So, no
matter how much it might bolster some interesting line of reasoning/argument
a person is trying to make -- it is not legitimate.
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
